The latest issue of Defining Ideas, a publication of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, has a lot to say about President Obama—and almost none of it is good. From an article on Obama’s economic policies:
Obama is implementing a large part of his agenda. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t add up, and he is laying twin time bombs with the explosion of federal government debt and inefficient government micromanagement of the economy.
Also flawed, according to a different article, is Obama’s plan to grant the Federal Reserve new regulatory powers that would “dilute the key mission” of that institution. Two articles take shots at health-care reform, one saying that “Obama’s plan takes the problems of the current system and makes them worse” and the other asserting: “Beneath piles of proposals, nothing but harm.”
Elsewhere in the journal, the Obama administration’s increase in funding for public schools is “doomed to disappoint.” Meanwhile his “aloofness” on Iraq is “a hindrance to him when it comes to issuing any call to arms in Afghanistan.” Cap and trade “could be economically unproductive.” And Obama’s reaction to the brutal crackdown in the wake of the elections in Iran was “tepid at best.”
The lone bright spot? Drone attacks on terrorists. From an article by Kenneth Anderson:
Obama was right as a candidate and is correct as president to insist on the propriety of targeted killings: that is, the targeting of a specific individual to be killed, increasingly often by means of high-technology, remote-controlled Predator drone aircraft wielding missiles from a standoff position.
Well, at least he’s got that going for him.
(The articles are all online — go here for the table of contents.)
26 Responses to Hoover Institution on Obama: Terrible (With One Exception)
11245928 - April 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm
What can you say of the Hoover Institute: Predictable…
plattpatty - April 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Well, really…I certainly hope Glenn Beck, Fatty what-his-face (the Oxycontin addict) Sarah Palin’s tutor and all the other wind-bags of the current movement pay a lot of money, and get a huge grin out of the Hooverites. Let’s see, why does Stanford host this insult to intellectual inquiry and scientific method? And who is it that says we in the academy are all liberals and intolerant? I say, old man…
jesor - April 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I have to say…An institute named after Herbert Hoover is the last place I’d go to when determining whether or not a particular set of economic policies is successful when averting what is now the second largest economic crisis in our country’s history.
unclibrary - April 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Stanford has a “Hoover Institute” because, next to John Elway, Herbert Hoover was Stanford’s most illustrious alumnus. It’s probably in the Hoover Institute’s charter that it has to be a conservative think-tank. At any rate, you can’t expect the Hoover Institute’s scholars to praise Obama’s depression avoiding policies. If they work, nobody’s going to remember the Hoover Institute’s analysis, anyway.
kingd - April 13, 2010 at 4:30 pm
It would be nice if Bartlett included in his byline that the Hoover Institute is a conservative think tank.
* I’m a little wary of such labels. Then you have to make a decision every time you mention a think tank whether they’re liberal or conservative or defy those designations. Better, I think, to let the content speak for itself. Also, it’s certainly no secret that the Hoover institution leans right. (And I don’t think you mean “byline” — that’s the part with my name). — Tom B.
jmcmanemin - April 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Interesting that all the negative comments about the Hoover Institution’s articles about Obama have nothing to say about the articles themselves.
hoffpeter - April 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm
It’s known as the Hoover Institute for a number of reasons. Among them:Its views have not advanced since Herbert masterminded the Great Depression.It sucks.
haggard - April 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm
unclibrary, in addition to john elway, tiger woods went to stanford.
supertatie - April 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Oh, poor babies. A group of intellectuals (like Thomas Sowell) has hurt your feelings because they do not idolize your Dear Leader?The fact is that Obama’s economic “policies” are and will be disastrous, and his attitude toward our allies is abysmal. Furthermore, any president who bows to Muslim kings and communists deserves the opprobrium Hoover heaps upon his head.
hmlowry - April 13, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Does this mean that I have to destroy my “Worst President Ever” t-shirt in memory of 43? I believe the 43 said that “history will be my judge.” Oh my, my, my. We’re appraising the end result for 44 before he’s even been in office for half a term.
mark900 - April 14, 2010 at 6:45 am
So a bunch of right wing proaganda spewers posing as “thinkers,” writing for a right wing proaganda mill posing as a “think tank” named for arguably the worst president of all time, savage Obama for not continuing the agenda of GW Bush (arguably one of Hoover’s closest rivals for the title of worst president). I can’t believe the Chronicle gave this nonsense any attention.
* Hey, it got you to comment! — Tom B.
lexalexander - April 14, 2010 at 8:44 am
Supertatie, speaking as a Red State Republican of 32 years’ standing, I’d just like to say that you don’t know what you are talking about.Yes, Obama’s economic policies will be disastrous, but not in the way you appear to think.He should never have allowed banks to deviate from mark-to-market accounting … and George W. Bush shouldn’t have, either. Doing so merely postpones the day of reckoning, but if we went ahead and had that day today, it would STILL be disastrous.His failure to push for an economic stimulus package big enough to address our real problems was a disaster. His failure to focus that package on the kinds of infrastructure improvements (including high-speed Internet) that will lay the groundwork for future prosperity, also was a disaster — just not as much as if Congressional Republicans had had their way.His attitude toward our allies is that their opinions count, which is a damn sight better than his predecessor’s attitude toward our allies. His attitude toward Israel is that, no, life’s not fair, but you still can’t go around committing war crimes, something no one in Bibi Netanyahu’s own government apparently has the stones to tell him. That’s hardly disastrous.And I’ll take a president who bows to Muslim kings and communists over a president who kisses and holds hands with Arabs who cynically fund terrorists who are trying to kill us any day.Is Obama my Dear Leader? Actually, no, he’s just another war criminal, based on his order of extrajudicial assassination attempts on American citizens. And when I say “criminal,” I literally mean he should be charged, indicted, prosecuted, just like his predecessor.
* Could we get a citation on this last assertion? — Tom B.
caelleigh - April 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
‘lexalexander’ may have been referring to the recent Administration order authorizing the CIA (in addition to military forces) to assassinate a U.S. citizen who lives in Yeman and has been linked to terrorist attacks. At least some of the links known to the public are not strong–for example, he exchanged email with Nidal Hasan, who killed military personnel and civilians at Ft. Hood.Here’s the Washington Post article about the authorization:Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to killBy Greg MillerWashington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 7, 2010 A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday. Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance against a gathering of suspected al-Qaeda operatives. Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations. “He’s in everybody’s sights,” said the U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the topic’s sensitivity. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: “This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law.” The decision to add Aulaqi to the CIA target list reflects the view among agency analysts that a man previously regarded mainly as a militant preacher has taken on an expanded role in al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based offshoot. “He’s recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” said a second U.S. official. “He’s working actively to kill Americans, so it’s both lawful and sensible to try to stop him.” The official stressed that there are “careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens.” Aulaqi corresponded by e-mail with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., last year. Aulaqi is not believed to have helped plan the attack, although he praised Hasan in an online posting for carrying it out. Concern grew about the cleric’s role after he was linked to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by detonating an explosive device he had smuggled in his underwear. Aulaqi acknowledged teaching and corresponding with the Nigerian but denied ordering the attack. The CIA is known to have carried out at least one Predator strike in Yemen. A U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, was among six alleged al-Qaeda operatives killed in that 2002 operation but was not the target.
11250382 - April 14, 2010 at 12:12 pm
So – do the majority of you then believe that those who are not on the “left” don’t know know to think critically? wow.
mush9902 - April 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I would just like to thank lexalexander. While I probably wouldn’t agree with this person on many policy ideas, it is nice to see…anyone, curb their emotions and provide substance with less opinion that substitutes as news these days. I don’t have all the answers and there are many things I don’t fully understand, but one thing I am sure of: critical thinking is what is missing more than ever. Ignorance is louder than ever. That may sound too righteous, but I’m 27, and I am very worried about the world’s future. It seems less and less people are thinking. But I wasn’t around for all of the last century, maybe this is always the way its been. But our capacity to affect everything in this world seems greater, so these half-a** decisions seem scarier than ever.
12079786 - April 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Well,I guess those white intolerant people at the Hoover Institute are just a bunch of racists for speaking ill of the policies of this administration. Oh I forgot, there are alot of other economic experts saying the same thing about this administrations economic policies. We just haven’t reached that point in time where we can look at the issues and not the race. Oh to have a WASP in the whitehouse again so we can publicly spew verbal hate and lies and feel good about it without being called racists. Oh how things have changed…………
jesor - April 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Race has nothing to do with this argument, it’s the Keynesian economics vs. neoclassical economics argument all over again. Unfortunately I have to agree with legalalexanders analysis that the stimulus package probably was too small to make a fast enough difference that would avoid long-term recession related debt for the federal government. Unfortunately, our requirement for compromise doesn’t allow us to jump fully into a course of action, but I’d rather have to deal with that consequence than have a managed economy in the Soviet or Chinese sense. As a leftie though, I think Obama’s biggest fault is that he tends to compromise before the negotiation has begun. He needs to start out from a hard left position and then show that he’s compromising by publicly moving to the middle, not starting in the middle and then appearing intransigent when he doesn’t adopt policies the Reagan would have considered to be too conservative.
rosmerta - April 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Tom, thanks for posting this piece, it’s nice to see the Chronicle isn’t afraid to report on conservative viewpoints. And you’re certainly generating discussion! Nice to see that academics are just as prone to invective and prejudice as the rest of blogosphere commenters.
lexalexander - April 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm
caelleigh is correct as to what I was referring to. Extrajudicial execution of U.S. citizens strikes me as an impeachable offense, although I Am Not A Lawyer.
goxewu - April 14, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Questions: 1. How/why does Mr. Bartlett get to reply within a commenter’s comment? (Shouldn’t he have to post a separate, numbered comment of his own? On “Brainstorm,” bloggers do that in response to comments, usually responding to a few or several comments at once.)2. Why are Mr. Bartlett’s comments in boldface? Visually, this is the equivalent of the bully pulpit in a radio talk show, in which the host’s voice is twice as loud as the caller’s.
Answers:
1. Because it’s easier to respond to direct questions — like yours. The current blog software doesn’t allow for threaded comments or for the post author’s reply to be in a different color (like Crooked Timber does, for instance). So this is an (admittedly imperfect) solution.
2. Bold makes it easier to distinguish between the commenter’s comment and my reply. That’s all. Don’t mean to shout. – Tom B.
asteingiesser - April 15, 2010 at 10:06 am
I am neither a fan a of Bush or Obama. I believe they are each doing what they believe to be best, whether I agree with them or not. However, what I find most interesting is that a group of “scholars and intellectuals” resort to name calling and are offended because someone else, or another institution, has disagreed with them. Isn’t that the same hubris you are accusing the “other side” of doing?
mercy_otis_warren - April 15, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Count me with Goxewu as one discomfited by Tom Bartlett’s uninvited intrusion into individual comments. Readers of the *CHE* are presumably intelligent enough to divine that a comment with, say, the user name “Tom_Bartlett” belongs to the author of the piece. Yes, this may be “imperfect,” but it’s a hell of a lot less “imperfect” than Bartlett adding an individualized gloss to comments he wishes to chastise or to correct (presumably, also to praise, although his intrusions here are purely defensive–I note he neglected to butt in, even with thanks, to caelleigh’s helpful answer to his question to lexalexander). Other *CHE* bloggers, by adding comments together with everyone else (Bauerlein is probably the most active, although Carey and Jackson do it too), indicate their sense that the conversation is among equals. Bartlett’s defensive interventions imply otherwise.
tebartlett - April 15, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Hi Mercy. Tom here. I’m putting this in as a regular comment because I know you feel strongly on this issue. And I would like to thank caelleigh for his/her helpful reply earlier, which — you’re totally right — I neglected to do. The bold, in-the-box thing still seems like the most useful way to respond to comments. When I read a blog, I personally like the sense that the blogger is still “in the room,” you know? But the words you chose here (uninvited intrusion) give me pause. Does that space seem like it belongs to the commenter? Should it? I don’t know. You think it does, obviously, as does the goxewu. I’d note that the NY Times’s Well blog does exactly what I’m doing above. Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.
mercy_otis_warren - April 16, 2010 at 9:50 am
Thanks for the response. It’s fair to ask if individual-comment space belongs strictly to the commenter, although I would argue that it does. To put it another way, should the article space above belong solely to you? How would you respond if I, goxewu, lexalexander, etc. used software that added boldface comments and questions within your original text? It’s legitimate to argue for a hypertextual free-for-all in which you get to intrude into my comment-space, and I get to intrude into your original-post space–in which everything here becomes the commons. But what seems to me less fair is half a free-for-all: your space remains yours, but everyone else’s becomes also yours to enter.
tebartlett - April 18, 2010 at 9:20 am
Hi Mercy. Tom here. Well, I wouldn’t like it if you or anyone else offered bold comments “within” my text. But, notice, I’m not putting comments within anyone’s texts — I’m replying at the end of what they’ve written. It is true, however, that I am intruding (your word) on the “comment space.” I wonder if what we’re talking about is just lines? What if there were a border that divided a comment and a reply? Would that solve it for you?By the way, I think this back-and-forth is more interesting than the post.
pgerster - May 3, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Indeed, typical Hoover maneuver.Republican lap dogs they are.The only governmental policies they support are those that contribute to violence–drone bombings, inflating the military budget, capital punishment, causing thousands of medical deaths due to lack of health care. Typical positions of the overprivileged.